Advanced

A meta-analysis of the relation between (creative) self-efficacy beliefs and creativity

Haase, Jennifer LU (2015) PSYP01 20151
Department of Psychology
Abstract
This meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17.226), about the relation between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Taken as a whole, the relation between those two constructs, assuming a random-effects model, is with r = .39 of medium size, as was proposed. Further subgroup analyses revealed a pattern of self-rated creativity measures (r = .53) those which use items (r = .43) or focus on the creative person (r = .47) correlate much higher with self-efficacy scales than scores for divergent thinking tests (r = .23), actual performance measures (verbal measurements, r = .27; figural measurement, r = .19) or with focus on the creative product (r = .32) or process (r = .27). So the relation between... (More)
This meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17.226), about the relation between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Taken as a whole, the relation between those two constructs, assuming a random-effects model, is with r = .39 of medium size, as was proposed. Further subgroup analyses revealed a pattern of self-rated creativity measures (r = .53) those which use items (r = .43) or focus on the creative person (r = .47) correlate much higher with self-efficacy scales than scores for divergent thinking tests (r = .23), actual performance measures (verbal measurements, r = .27; figural measurement, r = .19) or with focus on the creative product (r = .32) or process (r = .27). So the relation between self-efficacy and creativity is very much dependent on the measurement used in the study, emphasizing the need to explicitly separate creativity measures according to what they actually focus on. Efficacy scales differed in their focus, whether they assessed general self-efficacy beliefs, creative self-efficacy or creative-self-efficacy with focus on a special domain (e.g. math, science). However, those levels did not reveal any clear differences concerning their relation to creativity measures. All results are independent from the sample of the studies (considering type of sample, age and sex), country of origin, as well as the environment of assessment. Conceptual implications are discussed, likewise limitations, pitfalls and critics concerning both concepts and the method of the meta-analysis itself. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Haase, Jennifer LU
supervisor
organization
course
PSYP01 20151
year
type
H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
subject
keywords
creativity, creative, self-efficacy, CSE, meta-analysis, creativity measures
language
English
id
7362360
date added to LUP
2015-06-18 11:18:01
date last changed
2015-06-18 14:04:28
@misc{7362360,
  abstract     = {This meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17.226), about the relation between self-efficacy beliefs and creativity. Taken as a whole, the relation between those two constructs, assuming a random-effects model, is with r = .39 of medium size, as was proposed. Further subgroup analyses revealed a pattern of self-rated creativity measures (r = .53) those which use items (r = .43) or focus on the creative person (r = .47) correlate much higher with self-efficacy scales than scores for divergent thinking tests (r = .23), actual performance measures (verbal measurements, r = .27; figural measurement, r = .19) or with focus on the creative product (r = .32) or process (r = .27). So the relation between self-efficacy and creativity is very much dependent on the measurement used in the study, emphasizing the need to explicitly separate creativity measures according to what they actually focus on. Efficacy scales differed in their focus, whether they assessed general self-efficacy beliefs, creative self-efficacy or creative-self-efficacy with focus on a special domain (e.g. math, science). However, those levels did not reveal any clear differences concerning their relation to creativity measures. All results are independent from the sample of the studies (considering type of sample, age and sex), country of origin, as well as the environment of assessment. Conceptual implications are discussed, likewise limitations, pitfalls and critics concerning both concepts and the method of the meta-analysis itself.},
  author       = {Haase, Jennifer},
  keyword      = {creativity,creative,self-efficacy,CSE,meta-analysis,creativity measures},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {A meta-analysis of the relation between (creative) self-efficacy beliefs and creativity},
  year         = {2015},
}